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

jank

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

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.

Nobody says the world is just nor that the current system works, libertarians most of all, so I have no idea where you got that idea from. You subscribe to the notion of big government, high taxes that will be redistributed fairly among the people. However that system unjustly targets those who put their head down and work hard, save their own money for whatever means they want. IS that fair?

Tax is basically legalised robbery. I am not naive to think we cant ever be taxed, we do need certain government services like law and order, a court system, army to defend the borders, dare I say it a very small safety net for those genuinely unlucky but what we have today in the western world is a behemoth of systems, bureaucrats, officials and politicians slowly but surely making us slaves to the state for the 'benefit' of ourselves as "we" ordinary people cannot be trusted. That is what western governments are becoming.

To add, Ireland is not Sweden. It has been mentioned already but Swedish people are very different to Irish people in their outlook on what government is meant to do. People in different countries have different interests and cultures. Just look at the world around you to see proof of that. We cannot be them nor they can be us. We can try of course but it would not work.

OldNotWIse

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

In a perfect world. Here, the less you pour in, the more you take out.

steddyeddy

Not means testing child benifit is crazy Imo. I don't buy the means test is too hard rubbish nor do I but the taxing the high earners is too hard routine either. Amazing to see the sugar tax didn't go through either.

jank

K-9 wrote: »

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.

See, you are falling into the same trap. Poor people are better off then they were 20 years ago. Absolutely, I dont think anyone would claim otherwise. The standard of living enjoyed today by poor people in the west be it Ireland or the US is a million miles away from those who were poor say in the 1930's or 60 years ago.

As time shifts the idea of 'poor' gets shifted along with it. We see it all the time in these 'poverty' surveys. Sure wasn't there one published in Ireland a year ago saying that if one cant have a Sunday Roast they are classified as poor? Nonsense stuff

More than 46 million Americans are now living below the poverty threshold, according to numbers released by the Census Bureau on Tuesday. That's the highest number since the Bureau started keeping track of the statistic in 1959. Are poor people better off now than they were 52 years ago?

Much better, in absolute material terms. Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation recently published an analysis of the lifestyle of people below the poverty line in 21st-century America. He found that many poor people have amenities that were available only to the wealthy (if they existed at all) in 1959. The typical household at the poverty line includes air conditioning, two color televisions with a cable or satellite feed, a DVD player, and a microwave. Poor children usually have a video game system. More than 38 percent of poor people have a personal computer.

In the late 1950s, annual per capita caloric consumption reached a low point (PDF) for the 20th century. While food choices and the availability of fresh food in certain areas are major concerns, u ndernourishment is rare in the United States today. More than 92 percent of poor households always have enough food to eat, and poor children get about the same quantity of nutrients as middle-class children. Rector points out that poor children now "grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II."

K-9

jank wrote: »

See, you are falling into the same trap. Poor people are better off then they were 20 years ago. Absolutely, I dont think anyone would claim otherwise. The standard of living enjoyed today by poor people in the west be it Ireland or the US is a million miles away from those who were poor say in the 1930's or 60 years ago.

The above contradicts the below:

As time shifts the idea of 'poor' gets shifted along with it. We see it all the time in these 'poverty' surveys. Sure wasn't there one published in Ireland a year ago saying that if one cant have a Sunday Roast they are classified as poor? Nonsense stuff

A Sunday Roast would have been a luxury even 30 years ago, was for me anyway growing up, whereas with the increased standard of living that both you and me agree is a given, would be considered basic enough now. Anyway, anybody cooking a roast should be able to get a couple of meals out of it, better than eating processed crap!

I do agree with your general sentiment but with increased educational and knowledge levels, the ability to have a balanced diet should be a norm these days.

Basically you aren't looking at it in a rounded way, you are looking at it from a way to justify your political view. I'm not questioning your assertion that the poorer sections of society are better of than 30 years, what the stats point out is the wealthier show a higher increase in living standards than lower sections, which logically brings into question the trickle down economic dogma.

PS. I'd also question the quality of food poorer people can afford.

My name is URL

OldNotWIse wrote: »

In a perfect world. Here, the less you pour in, the more you take out.

That's the same in every socially orientated state. Obviously those who are better off have much less need for the safety nets provided by the system (welfare, grants, public healthcare etc)

Ireland is far from perfect but it's a bit of a woolly headed notion to believe that the poorest in society should be taking out of the system only in proportion to what they are putting in. It's also a bit disingenuous to say that the most well off should put less in because they avail of less services.. they avail of plenty.. they operate and earn within a system which allows them to (in relative terms) freely and easily do that.

As for people seeing the state as something to be leeched off.. well that's certainly not exclusive to those on very low incomes. Even the political classes are all to happy to bleed the system. http://www.thejournal.ie/minister-and-wife-claim-tax-breaks-on-13-bed-moneygall-mansion-127346-Apr2011/

The culture of entitlement in this country isn't something that can or will be changed by singling out any single group.

Karl Stein

jank wrote: »

Has the free market failed? News to me.

What free market? The one in your head?

It’s time to start getting honest about a very simple fact: Nobody, but nobody, really believes in free markets. That’s right. Not the Republican Party, not the libertarians, not the Wall Street Journal, nobody.

Here’s why: a truly free market is a perfectly competitive market. Which means that whatever you have to sell in that market, so does your competition. Which means price war. Which means your price gets driven down. Which means little or no profit for you.

Naturally, businesses flee perfectly competitive markets like the plague. In fact, the fine art of doing so is a big part of what they teach in business schools.


http://rwer.wordpress.com/2011/12/18/why-free-market-economics-is-a-fraud/

If you're going to reply to this post please address the specific points instead of flooding the the thread with bullshit.

Remember now, address the specific points made above.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

jank wrote: »

Nobody says the world is just nor that the current system works, libertarians most of all, so I have no idea where you got that idea from. You subscribe to the notion of big government, high taxes that will be redistributed fairly among the people. However that system unjustly targets those who put their head down and work hard, save their own money for whatever means they want. IS that fair?

Not true, and part of the just world fallacy again. Read up on it. It targets the wealthy, and the idea that all wealthy people are hard working is bull****.

Is it fair that people with more pay more to help the people who have less? I think so. I wouldn't mind paying it if I had it.

Tax is basically legalised robbery. I am not naive to think we cant ever be taxed, we do need certain government services like law and order, a court system, army to defend the borders, dare I say it a very small safety net for those genuinely unlucky but what we have today in the western world is a behemoth of systems, bureaucrats, officials and politicians slowly but surely making us slaves to the state for the 'benefit' of ourselves as "we" ordinary people cannot be trusted. That is what western governments are becoming.

Seriously? You're contrdicting yourself here. "A very small amount" - you need to start with the people who need it then work pout how much. If people genuinely need it but there isn't enough don;t hve it, is that fair?

Asking people to contirbute to the upkeep of services is "robbery"? Where did you get that soundbite for? If the taxes are not reinvested in society then yes - it is. But if they are, then how can it be robbery? The people taking the money are not keeping it.

To add, Ireland is not Sweden. It has been mentioned already but Swedish people are very different to Irish people in their outlook on what government is meant to do. People in different countries have different interests and cultures. Just look at the world around you to see proof of that. We cannot be them nor they can be us. We can try of course but it would not work.

As I said: someone asked for a system that was fair, I gave them the most fair system mankind currently has.

Taking aside the fact that it probably wouldn't work here (fair enough) do you accpet that it CAN work and DOES work and if so, where does it leave your point taxes being robbery?

OldNotWIse

My name is URL wrote: »

That's the same in every socially orientated state. Obviously those who are better off have much less need for the safety nets provided by the system (welfare, grants, public healthcare etc)

Ireland is far from perfect but it's a bit of a woolly headed notion to believe that the poorest in society should be taking out of the system only in proportion to what they are putting in. It's also a bit disingenuous to say that the most well off should put less in because they avail of less services.. they avail of plenty.. they operate and earn within a system which allows them to (in relative terms) freely and easily do that.

As for people seeing the state as something to be leeched off.. well that's certainly not exclusive to those on very low incomes. Even the political classes are all to happy to bleed the system. http://www.thejournal.ie/minister-and-wife-claim-tax-breaks-on-13-bed-moneygall-mansion-127346-Apr2011/

The culture of entitlement in this country isn't something that can or will be changed by singling out any single group.

I dont believe that was the point? But we do have a middle band that put in far more than those above or below - be it entire families living a life of handouts or those on the other end of the spectrum who have speciaists advising them how to avoid tax.

Lyaiera

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I dont believe that was the point? But we do have a middle band that put in far more than those above or below - be it entire families living a life of handouts or those on the other end of the spectrum who have speciaists advising them how to avoid tax.

Then this goes back to the same figure from the boom time years... We had 4% unemployment. Given seasonal work, people between jobs and people changing status within the welfare system that's considered pretty much full employment of everyone who can work. This idea of there being hordes of people milking the system is rubbish when people were willing to work when the jobs were there.

Playboy

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I wouldn't mind paying it if I had it.

As every person who doesnt have it asserts. It's such a shame that all the altruists are poor whilst the selfish are rich. It's very easy to lay claim to what somebody else has for your own benefit and its not easy to be forced to give away something you have for somebody else's benefit.

People with more already pay more due to the simple fact that taxing a % of a larger amount leads to a bigger tax bill for the wealthy. However people who have more also pay more porpotionally due to staggered tax systems. Now the same person who pays more also uses less but people with less always seem to want more. Where does this situation end up?

There has to be a balance between what tax the wealthy are forced to pay (or they will avoid/evade it) and the wider approach to welfare expenditure in general. If there is a lack of balance then there will be resentment on both sides. In Ireland there seems to be a pervasive entitlement culture where people take very little personal responsibility for their situation. The purpose of the state seems to have been interpreted in a way that creates some sort of expectation that people can somehow expect other people to pick up the tab for any issue that befalls them over the course of their life. I dont agree, I'm happy to support people who really need it and find themselves in a situation out of their ability to control or mitigate. I'm not happy to support people who live their lives in an irresponsible way that involves me paying part of my income to subsidise other peoples constant poor choices.

Ray Palmer

thick_skin wrote: »

in your opinion

Actually the systems opinion. Just because it is being changed now doesn't mean it is fair or correct.

So take the bereavement grant. At one point people couldn't afford funeral so there were mass pauper graves. So they come up with the bereavement grant giving people money to be buried on the condition they pay PRSI payment of a certain amount. Now the many peoples' PRSI would pay enough for the grant but when you take the higher earners who pay more than they would need for the their own grant. That is how they afford the grant.

Now they are just taking this payment away which you already paid for.

People like to go on about CB payments being means tested but it works in a similar way. Some people pay more so that everybody gets it. To take it away from high earners is a disgrace as it is them paying for the majority and they are still getting less than they put in. It is just a way to administrate tax credits.

K-9

Playboy wrote: »

People with more already pay more due to the simple fact that taxing a % of a larger amount leads to a bigger tax bill for the wealthy. However people who have more also pay more porpotionally due to staggered tax systems. Now the same person who pays more also uses less but people with less always seem to want more. Where does this situation end up?

There has to be a balance between what tax the wealthy are forced to pay (or they will avoid/evade it) and the wider approach to welfare expenditure in general. If there is a lack of balance then there will be resentment on both sides. In Ireland there seems to be a pervasive entitlement culture where people take very little personal responsibility for their situation. The purpose of the state seems to have been interpreted in a way that creates some sort of expectation that people can somehow expect other people to pick up the tab for any issue that befalls them over the course of their life. I dont agree, I'm happy to support people who really need it and find themselves in a situation out of their ability to control or mitigate. I'm not happy to support people who live their lives in an irresponsible way that involves me paying part of my income to subsidise other peoples constant poor choices.

I don't think anybody would have a problem with people who are abusing or taking advantage of welfare getting caught, but focusing mostly on those and letting it dominate your thinking about people isn't helpful for a meaningful debate. It's a bit like me focusing on wealthy people who abuse tax laws to pay little or no tax and then applying that to my general outlook on wealthy people.

With any system people will look for holes and ways round it, Wall Street and investment bankers had their fair share of chancers as well!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Playboy wrote: »

As every person who doesnt have it asserts. It's such a shame that all the altruists are poor whilst the selfish are rich. It's very easy to lay claim to what somebody else has for your own benefit and its not easy to be forced to give away something you have for somebody else's benefit.

I make and pay above the average wage (not massively so) so what's the problem?

It's also very esy to make excuses like you worked hard for it and deserve it, which as I pointed put is not always the case. What abotu the huy who works 50 hours a week to pay for and feed his family on minimum wage? is he not also workign hard?

People with more already pay more due to the simple fact that taxing a % of a larger amount leads to a bigger tax bill for the wealthy. However people who have more also pay more porpotionally due to staggered tax systems. Now the same person who pays more also uses less but people with less always seem to want more. Where does this situation end up?

Currently, yes. That's part of the problem. It's an equal sstem. but making it moer unequal won't help.

There has to be a balance between what tax the wealthy are forced to pay (or they will avoid/evade it) and the wider approach to welfare expenditure in general. If there is a lack of balance then there will be resentment on both sides.

Agreed - but in the proposals for small government, the balance is shifted in the wrong direction.

In Ireland there seems to be a pervasive entitlement culture where people take very little personal responsibility for their situation. The purpose of the state seems to have been interpreted in a way that creates some sort of expectation that people can somehow expect other people to pick up the tab for any issue that befalls them over the course of their life. I dont agree, I'm happy to support people who really need it and find themselves in a situation out of their ability to control or mitigate. I'm not happy to support people who live their lives in an irresponsible way that involves me paying part of my income to subsidise other peoples constant poor choices.

This I would also agree with: but how do you identify the genuinely hard working from the wealthy; and the genuinly needy from the lazy?

OldNotWIse

Lyaiera wrote: »

Then this goes back to the same figure from the boom time years... We had 4% unemployment. Given seasonal work, people between jobs and people changing status within the welfare system that's considered pretty much full employment of everyone who can work. This idea of there being hordes of people milking the system is rubbish when people were willing to work when the jobs were there.

Um...how many people were on the dole during the boom?

Karl Stein

Playboy wrote: »

People with more already pay more due to the simple fact that taxing a % of a larger amount leads to a bigger tax bill for the wealthy.

% is %. If you tax someone on 200K PA 10% it's 10%. If you tax someone on 20K PA 10% it's 10%.

However people who have more also pay more porpotionally due to staggered tax systems.

The tax rates are staggered on pay/income. The fact is that the more people earn the more likely it is they will have income from other sources that are far harder to asses; property, stocks/shares, trust funds, destructive accountants etc.

Now the same person who pays more also uses less

Bull.
****.

The more you extract from the system the more it serves you.

The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities, that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

Adam Smith: Wealth Of Nations

Playboy wrote: »

There has to be a balance between what tax the wealthy are forced to pay (or they will avoid/evade it) and the wider approach to welfare expenditure in general.

This is a reason to be more rigorous about closing loopholes rather than letting people off the hook.

In Ireland there seems to be a pervasive entitlement culture where people take very little personal responsibility for their situation.

Yes. The massive welfare programs for failed bond speculators, failed banks/ers, property speculators, failed politicians and failed civil servants are going to cost this country dearly for a generation.

I'm not happy to support people who live their lives in an irresponsible way that involves me paying part of my income to subsidise other peoples constant poor choices.

Who is? Again, consider the massive welfare programs for failed bond speculators, failed banks/ers, property speculators, failed politicians and failed civil servants are going to cost this country dearly for a generation.

Ray Palmer

Lyaiera wrote: »

Then this goes back to the same figure from the boom time years... We had 4% unemployment. Given seasonal work, people between jobs and people changing status within the welfare system that's considered pretty much full employment of everyone who can work. This idea of there being hordes of people milking the system is rubbish when people were willing to work when the jobs were there.

Wrong!

There were tons of people on CE schemes to help them get into work. There are also tons of dubious illness/disability benefits. There are a few categories you can be in that don't show up as live register but involve people milking the system. It is a false premise to say the figure of 4% indicated this in anyway.

Lyaiera

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Wrong!

There were tons of people on CE schemes to help them get into work. There are also tons of dubious illness/disability benefits. There are a few categories you can be in that don't show up as live register but involve people milking the system. It is a false premise to say the figure of 4% indicated this in anyway.

The same type of scheme people are now demanding everyone on the dole goes on. I'd also like to see how you quantified the "tons of dubious illness/disability" benefit claimants.

A 4% unemployment figure is roundabout full employment in an economy.

Ray Palmer

Lyaiera wrote: »

The same type of scheme people are now demanding everyone on the dole goes on. I'd also like to see how you quantified the "tons of dubious illness/disability" benefit claimants.

A 4% unemployment figure is roundabout full employment in an economy.

No different schemes. Many are used to keep people busy and fulfil requirements for stats. You never heard any of the stories of a builder with a bad back claiming disability benefits and found to be still working. Check the court section in the papers they are there every week.

I know what the 4% means and remember us getting there. The point is the figure isn't a very accurate figure due to the exclusion of certain schemes.

You really need to look at what some CE schemes involve. There are some schemes that involved people calling around to old people and listening to their local stories. Some people where serial CE scheme attenders too. TD getting them forced into schemes too.
In saying that many of these people couldn't work a real job anyway and should be classed as unemployable.

tayto lover

OldRio wrote: »

Just read the last few pages of this thread.
Fair play to the Government.
Divide and rule still works.
Let the great unwashed squabble amongst themselves whilst those with the real money and power go about their business unnoticed and untouched.

Post of the day.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Ace2007

dark crystal wrote: »

But the only thing less well off pensioners will lose is the telephone line rental scheme. They won't lose their medical cards, only wealthier over 70's will, so they're not being treated the same.

At time of writing I did not know the criteria for the medical card and had asked and saw no reponse.

tayto lover

Is cutting the tax allowance on Private health Insurance not a bit stupid. I thought they would be encouraging people to take it out as they are paying for their own hospital treatment instead of relying on the state to pay for it.

Its akin to putting a tax on gym membership in my opinion.

KERSPLAT!

Ace2007 wrote: »

At time of writing I did not know the criteria for the medical card and had asked and saw no reponse.

Income thresholds for over 70s on medical cards to be lowered to €900 per week for couple and €500 for a single person. They'll lose the medical card but get a GP card AFAIK

ibarelycare

So there was a protest for those opposed to the lowering of the dole for under 26's today on Kildare Street. Approximately 100 protestors showed. That's just very sad. Are young people really that apathetic to what's happening?

KERSPLAT!

ibarelycare wrote: »

So there was a protest for those opposed to the lowering of the dole for under 26's today on Kildare Street. Approximately 100 protestors showed. That's just very sad. Are young people really that apathetic to what's happening?

I'd say yes for the most part, the others probably feel that there's just no point and protesting will get them no where

It was fairly bucketing down all day as well :pac:

ibarelycare

Princess Petulia Pissy Pants wrote: »

I'd say yes for the most part, the others probably feel that there's just no point and protesting will get them no where

It was fairly bucketing down all day as well :pac:

It stopped lashing before lunch in town, there were a couple of showers but it was basically grand.

It shows a lot that the OAPs turned out on their thousands to protest a few years ago, but the young and fit adults only yielded a few dozen!

efb

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WINDtlPXmmE

Ace2007

ibarelycare wrote: »

It stopped lashing before lunch in town, there were a couple of showers but it was basically grand.

It shows a lot that the OAPs turned out on their thousands to protest a few years ago, but the young and fit adults only yielded a few dozen!

the young that get their dole on a Tuesday, were probably out last night for the pints before the price goes up, therefore they would be too hung over to bother to go into town and protest.

Swan Curry

Average young person's daily schedule:
Half of the day:Work
Other half of the day:Study/work some more
Any spare time left over:Drink because there's not much else to do.

Average pensioner's daily schedule:
Morning:Mass(Not necessarily attended)
Rest of the day:?

I wonder why the elderly are able to turn up in numbers at the same time to protest in the middle of the day while young people aren't?

Young people can't win with protesting.If they do protest,they're told their problems are insignificant and don't need to be addressed.If they don't protest,it's because they're lazy drunks.Is it that surprising that so many are leaving Ireland when the government is constantly making life harder for them?

ibarelycare

Swan Curry wrote: »

Average young person's daily schedule:
Half of the day:Work
Other half of the day:Study/work some more
Any spare time left over:Drink because there's not much else to do.

Average pensioner's daily schedule:
Morning:Mass(Not necessarily attended)
Rest of the day:?

I wonder why the elderly are able to turn up in numbers at the same time to protest in the middle of the day while young people aren't?

Young people can't win with protesting.If they do protest,they're told their problems are insignificant and don't need to be addressed.If they don't protest,it's because they're lazy drunks.Is it that surprising that so many are leaving Ireland when the government is constantly making life harder for them?

It should be the young unemployed people protesting. They're the ones who have been affected. They're not in work or college. A percentage of them are doing Jobbridge but the majority of them would have been free to make their voices heard.