The Pro Austerity Crowd

RecordStraight

tayto lover wrote: »

So?

So does it make sense to tax them to the point where they will actually go somewhere where they are allowed to hold onto some of their own money, leaving us even worse off than before? Laffer curve?

mickydoomsux

tayto lover wrote: »

So?

Genius argument.

darkpagandeath

RecordStraight wrote: »

So does it make sense to tax them to the point where they will actually go somewhere where they are allowed to hold onto some of their own money, leaving us even worse off than before? Laffer curve?

And when all the tax loopholes/havens are closed and we move to more of a global tax system ? were will they go then

tayto lover

RecordStraight wrote: »

So does it make sense to tax them to the point where they will actually go somewhere where they are allowed to hold onto some of their own money, leaving us even worse off than before? Laffer curve?

Seeing as we are told that they don't pay anything like the levels they should maybe we should just make them pay the levels they should.

RecordStraight

darkpagandeath wrote: »

And when all the tax loopholes/havens are closed and we move to more of a global tax system ? were will they go then

Nowhere, hopefully. I'm not opposed to people paying tax - I'm opposed to stupid policies that would fail and leave us worse off than before.

Why do people assume the most stupid things? That's two idiotic assumptions you've made in this thread alone.

KyussBishop

RecordStraight wrote: »

But this is a thread about austerity, right? I'm not sure why it makes more sense to post in that thread if you have to make the same arguments anyway.

I am struck by your confidence that increasing spending is absolutely the right solution. I've studied Keynesian and Hayekian approaches to public spending, and large parts of both arguments are very persuasive, while others are clearly weak.

Yet you appear to have absolutely no doubt that increased spending, increased government debt, is the definite solution to the current crisis. How have you arrived at this view, do you mind me asking?

I just know from past experience, that the TAN idea, leads to huge discussions about how it works - I don't mind discussing it a little here, but better to have the technical/how-it-works side of it, in the other thread.

I came to this view, by studying economics as a dilettante for the past 3 years, and by learning about all that is wrong with different branches/schools of economics, and by finding the one that is least-wrong; I believe the Post-Keynesian school is the least ideological, and has the most potential for turning economics into a science someday, with economists like Steve Keen, who advocate views very similar to mine.

RecordStraight

tayto lover wrote: »

Seeing as we are told that they don't pay anything like the levels they should maybe we should just make them pay the levels they should.

'We are told'? By who?

Should we believe these people, whoever they are? Who are they referring to?

As I said, I'm all for people paying tax if they can afford to.

tayto lover

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Genius argument.

So I wanted him to explain his point.
No need for the arrogant comment.
That's the kind of thing that has your party hated.

RecordStraight

KyussBishop wrote: »

I just know from past experience, that the TAN idea, leads to huge discussions about how it works - I don't mind discussing it a little here, but better to have the technical/how-it-works side of it, in the other thread.

I came to this view, by studying economics as a dilettante for the past 3 years, and by learning about with different branches/schools of economics, and by finding the one that is least-wrong; I believe the Post-Keynesian school is the least ideological, and has the most potential for turning economics into a science someday, with economists like Steve Keen, who advocate views very similar to mine.

But then how has Steve Keen arrived at this 'true' understanding of economics, devoid of ideological bias?

Criticisms[edit]
Some reviewers contend that Keen has not shown what he claims, that he misrepresents economic theory, and that he gets basic mathematics wrong.[12]

Matthijs Krul[13][14] maintains that Keen, while broadly accurate in his criticism of the neoclassical synthesis, generally misrepresents Marx's views in Debunking Economics and in earlier work when asserting that, in the production of commodities, machinery produces more value than it costs.[15]

Austrian economists Robert P. Murphy and Gene Callahan, criticize Keen's 2001 book, by stating that the "work suffers from many of the very faults of which he accuses the mainstream". They also claim that much of his work is "ideologically motivated even while criticizing neoclassical economics for being ideological". They praise his critique of perfect competition, and his chapter on dynamic vs static models, whilst they criticize his attempts at objective value theory and what they claim is his misinterpretation of the Austrian interpretation of Say's law.[16]

(from Wikipedia)

tayto lover

RecordStraight wrote: »

'We are told'? By who?

Should we believe these people, whoever they are? Who are they referring to?

As I said, I'm all for people paying tax if they can afford to.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/business/features/companies-must-pay-their-fair-share-of-taxes-265142.html

http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2013/0521/451564-apple-tax-arrangements/

mickydoomsux

tayto lover wrote: »

So I wanted him to explain his point.
No need for the arrogant comment.
That's the kind of thing that has your party hated.

My "party"? What are you on about?

Also, the "him" you want to explain their point was me.

Try to keep up sweetie xoxo.

tritium

darkpagandeath wrote: »

And when all the tax loopholes/havens are closed and we move to more of a global tax system ? were will they go then

In the interests of having a clear understanding of the position, can someone from the' tax the rich' side give me an answer to the following:

1. What percentage of the gross pay do they feel someone should pay in tax (income tax+USC and levies)? Let's take below the following bands; 25k, 50k, 75k, 100k, 100k?

2. What percentage of the total tax take do they feel that the top 25% of earners should contribute?

3.how much in total (in millions of euro) extra would they look to take in taxes from the >100k group?

KyussBishop

RecordStraight wrote: »

But then how has Steve Keen arrived at this 'true' understanding of economics, devoid of ideological bias?

(from Wikipedia)

Are you just making posts, fishing for something to nitpick over?

tayto lover

mickydoomsux wrote: »

My "party"? What are you on about?

Also, the "him" you want to explain their point was me.

Try to keep up sweetie xoxo.

Well then just make your point clear and you wont get the "so" bit sweetie.

RecordStraight

KyussBishop wrote: »

Are you just making posts, fishing for something to nitpick over?

No, I asked you a straight question about how you became so certain that increased government debt was the solution to our current economic crisis. You answered that you read some economics, and you were relying particularly on the views of Steve Keen, as his seemed the most devoid of ideological bias.

I'm pointing out that he too has been accused of ideological bias. I guess, much like accents, it is possible that when people's ideology aligns with yours, you think they have none.

I don't think the defensive tone of your post was merited.

road_high

RecordStraight wrote: »

Did the anti-Austerity crowd ever tell us where the magical money tree has been found?

No but I believe Ming Flanagan and SF surely know, don't they? Lets hope they can tell us all soon though.

longhalloween

tayto lover wrote: »

Anything but taxing those who can afford to pay it most.

Have a quick look at the Deloitte Tax Calculator and you'll see that all's not rosy for high earners.

If someone on 90k gets a 10k wage increase, they'll pay an extra 6k in tax.

Is that not high enough for you?

KyussBishop

RecordStraight wrote: »

No, I asked you a straight question about how you became so certain that increased government debt was the solution to our current economic crisis. You answered that you read some economics, and you were relying particularly on the views of Steve Keen, as his seemed the most devoid of ideological bias.

I'm pointing out that he too has been accused of ideological bias. I guess, much like accents, it is possible that when people's ideology aligns with yours, you think they have none.

I don't think the defensive tone of your post was merited.

You're just subtly rewording what I said, in order to pick an argument by the looks of it really - waste of time.

RecordStraight

KyussBishop wrote: »

You're just subtly rewording what I said, in order to pick for an argument by the looks of it really - waste of time.

Clearly. I can tell an ideologue when I see one.

tayto lover

longhalloween wrote: »

Have a quick look at the Deloitte Tax Calculator and you'll see that all's not rosy for high earners.

If someone on 90k gets a 10k wage increase, they'll pay an extra 6k in tax.

Is that not high enough for you?

They will still live comfortably.
Someone on a low wage who gets another cut or new tax will have a lot more problems.

KyussBishop

RecordStraight wrote: »

Clearly. I can tell an ideologue when I see one.

Ya - I can tell someone looking to stir shít when I see it too; how many times have you re-regged and been banned now?

RecordStraight

tayto lover wrote: »

They will still live comfortably.
Someone on a low wage who gets another cut or new tax will have a lot more problems.

Follow-up question: do people who work harder/are smarter deserve to earn more?

RecordStraight

KyussBishop wrote: »

Ya - I can tell someone looking to stir shít when I see it too; how many times have you re-regged and been banned now?

Please do not address any posts to me - I will be ignoring you from now on due to your uncivil response to a polite post on my part.

KyussBishop

RecordStraight wrote: »

Please do not address any posts to me - I will be ignoring you from now on due to your uncivil response to a polite post on my part.

It's a bit uncivil to keep re-regging to tank threads all the time, don't you think?

Celly Smunt

tayto lover wrote: »

They will still live comfortably.
Someone on a low wage who gets another cut or new tax will have a lot more problems.

So punish higher earners because they've studied/worked to live comfortably?

longhalloween

tayto lover wrote: »

They will still live comfortably.
Someone on a low wage who gets another cut or new tax will have a lot more problems.

Or they'll probably just leave and find work in another country.

Then you have a double brain drain system, where entrepreneurs, businessmen, engineers and scientists (ie. the people who create jobs) are leaving the country due to high personal taxes, and the graduates and entry level workers are following them due to lack of employment at home.

This whole idea of "Sure isn't he earning enough to live" is ridiculous as is removes the incentive for people to better themselves, strive for promotion or start new enterprises.

Celly Smunt

longhalloween wrote: »

Or they'll probably just leave and find work in another country.

Then you have a double brain drained system, where entrepreneurs, businessmen, engineers and scientists (ie. the people who create jobs) are leaving the country due to high personal taxes, and the graduates and entry level workers are following them due to lack of employment at home.

This whole idea of "Sure isn't he earning enough to live" is ridiculous as is removes the incentive for people to better themselves, strive for promotion or start new enterprises.

And this sums up why lefty economics will never benefit anyone.

tayto lover

RecordStraight wrote: »

Follow-up question: do people who work harder/are smarter deserve to earn more?

Every worker is working hard now.
Those who earn most should be prepared to give a little more as they can afford it. It hurts them less.
We are in a recession as most of you keep pointing out.

RecordStraight

tayto lover wrote: »

Every worker is working hard now.
Those who earn most should be prepared to give a little more as they can afford it. It hurts them less.
We are in a recession as most of you keep pointing out.

Are you talking about what you think people SHOULD do, or what you think they WILL do?

Do you think they WILL stay around if we keep increasing their taxes? If they leave, what happens to our tax take?

bumper234

tayto lover wrote: »

Every worker is working hard now.
Those who earn most should be prepared to give a little more as they can afford it. It hurts them less.
We are in a recession as most of you keep pointing out.

How much is a "little more"?

Another 2%? 5%? 15%?

Seeing as you want the people who are paying tax to pay a little more can i also assume (to help the country out of recession quicker) that you would advocate social welfare recipients and OAP's to take the same % in cuts?

Celly Smunt

tayto lover wrote: »

Every worker is working hard now.
Those who earn most should be prepared to give a little morethey can afford it. It hurts them less.
We are in a recession as most of you keep pointing out.

But they are giving more, some are giving more than what ten workers are, not to mention entrepreneurs that employ those so they can pay tax in the first place.Why should they lift anybody else up?, higher earners are already propping up the majority of sectors, to say they should suffer more is a bit crap.

longhalloween

RecordStraight wrote: »

Do you think they WILL stay around if we keep increasing their taxes? If they leave, what happens to our tax take?

Not only will the tax take decrease, but all the wealth generated by these individuals will disappear. All the jobs created by these individuals will disappear. All the associated jobs created by their custom will disappear.

And all the graduates, who the Government have spent millions educating, will disappear.

And when you have MNC's, who employ 150k professionals in Ireland, saying that personal tax is already too high, the case for increasing it further is just a joke.

padd b1975

RecordStraight wrote: »

Did the anti-Austerity crowd ever tell us where the magical money tree has been found?

No, Gerry got arrested before they got a chance.

tritium

tayto lover wrote: »

They will still live comfortably.
Someone on a low wage who gets another cut or new tax will have a lot more problems.

Maybe you'd like to answer the questions I posed earlier so- you seem like a good 'tax the rich' advocate. How much if their gross should they pay? How much of the total tax take should they pay?

tayto lover

The recession was caused by the well off.
The low paid workers, special needs children, elderly etc are shouldering more of the pain than the rich.
It's time to spread it out.

road_high

RecordStraight wrote: »

Follow-up question: do people who work harder/are smarter deserve to earn more?

Of course they do and rightly so. This "tax the rich" non-sense really grates on my ears. Why should somebody who is successful, presumably worked very hard to get to their high-paid position, then see half the rewards taken off them and be doled out to a cohort of welfare and "disability" scroungers , who in many cases never did a days work in their lives?
The welfare/tax system in Ireland blatantly favours those who contribute least (in many cases nothing at all). The incentive to work seems to have gone out the window amonst a whole section of society. I don't see why those earning and working hard should be asked to stump up for their lifestyles, no more so than those on low/middle incomes I might add.

bumper234

tayto lover wrote: »

The recession was caused by the well off.
The low paid workers, special needs children, elderly etc are shouldering more of the pain than the rich.
It's time to spread it out.

You really do like to avoid those hard to answer questions don't you?

KyussBishop

tayto lover wrote: »

The recession was caused by the well off.
The low paid workers, special needs children, elderly etc are shouldering more of the pain than the rich.
It's time to spread it out.

Problem with this narrative, is it leads straight to a divide in the debate. I think now, that focusing on stopping further upward distribution of wealth (like the new property bubble), is another way of achieving the same thing (well, preventing it getting worse), and without dividing people.

Phoebas

tayto lover wrote: »

The recession was caused by the well off.

I knew the 'well off' were up to something. We should round them up before they strike again.

longhalloween

tayto lover wrote: »

The recession was caused by the well off.

It actually wasn't. Most of the well off are capable of paying their debts.

tayto lover wrote: »

The low paid workers, special needs children, elderly etc are shouldering more of the pain than the rich.

Granted, they're less well off now, but that's mainly due to cuts in public services and benefits, and less due to wage cuts. The minimum wage hasn't changed in a decade.

tayto lover wrote: »

It's time to spread it out.

Higher earners pay most of the tax, so "spreading it out" would involve increasing taxes for low earners, which goes against your argument.

road_high wrote: »

Why should somebody who is successful, presumably worked very hard to get to their high-paid position, then see half the rewards taken off them and be doled out to a cohort of welfare and "disability" scroungers , who in many cases never did a days work in their lives?

Let's not jump from one extreme to another. Scroungers only make up a tiny percentage of the population.
The problem as I find it is that low income workers see a high earner and see the big car, nice house, holidays and all the rest, without seeing the sacrifice and years of education and toil to attain that position.

RecordStraight

tayto lover wrote: »

The recession was caused by the well off.

How???

zl1whqvjs75cdy

I think the government need to be very careful with how they are treating the "well off" (could we get a definition for this btw?).

I work in quite a specialised area and myself and nearly all my colleagues are just waiting for our contracts to run out before we leave the country. We are all well educated in areas which the government claims to want to promote. But this constant pandering to the least economically productive groups in society doesn't exactly incentivise us to stay. Sorry to go off on a personal tangent but this is the reality amoung the highly qualified from what I can see at the moment.

KyussBishop

Fúck taxes - look at who is causing the problem with wealth distribution in the first place - the connected/wealthy/powerful folk, doing things like creating property bubbles.

Absolutely no point redistributing wealth downwards with taxes, while they are just accelerating the upward redistribution of wealth in other ways - need to fix that first; the former is a controversial/losing narrative, the latter is a narrative that is more easy to win.

mickydoomsux

KyussBishop wrote: »

the connected/wealthy/powerful folk, doing things like creating property bubbles.

That had nothing to do with John and Jane Doe taking out a €350k mortgage on a ****box in Meath bought off the plans because they simply HAD to buy a house because everyone else was?

Once again it was entirely the fault of The Evil Rich.

road_high

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

I think the government need to be very careful with how they are treating the "well off" (could we get a definition for this btw?).

I work in quite a specialised area and myself and nearly all my colleagues are just waiting for our contracts to run out before we leave the country. We are all well educated in areas which the government claims to want to promote. But this constant pandering to the least economically productive groups in society doesn't exactly incentivise us to stay. Sorry to go off on a personal tangent but this is the reality amoung the highly qualified from what I can see at the moment.

I understand completely. The country could basically tax itself out of the market for the pool of educated, skilled and highly renumarated individuals like yourself. It's a global game in many industries, and those with very saleable skills and knowledge can and will up sticks and sell them elsewhere. All to our Irelands loss. Sadly, those that contribute zilch enver seem to leave but stay herre as thay realise how cushy they all have it here, with everything paid for.

KyussBishop

mickydoomsux wrote: »

That had nothing to do with John and Jane Doe taking out a €350k mortgage on a ****box in Meath bought off the plans because they simply HAD to buy a house because everyone else was?

Once again it was entirely the fault of The Evil Rich.

The price of houses, rises with the availability of cheap credit - look to the people responsible for creating the conditions for, for supporting/lobbying in favour of, and for doling out, the cheap credit - and those well-connected enough to be the businessmen on the other end, churning out property to soak up the credit - all of them happen to also be the ones that got rich from it.

road_high

mickydoomsux wrote: »

That had nothing to do with John and Jane Doe taking out a €350k mortgage on a ****box in Meath bought off the plans because they simply HAD to buy a house because everyone else was?

Once again it was entirely the fault of The Evil Rich.

Indeed a bit of personal responsibility for ones own life and financial decisions would go a long way.

longhalloween

KyussBishop wrote: »

Fúck taxes - look at who is causing the problem with wealth distribution in the first place - the connected/wealthy/powerful folk, doing things like creating property bubbles.

Don't forget the rental bubble the wealthy are creating now. Those dastardly rich people!

darkpagandeath

Phoebas wrote: »

I knew the 'well off' were up to something. We should round them up before they strike again.

Yes bakers did have alot to do with the problem or are you saying the banks hands are clean and had no input in the problem. ?

mickydoomsux

KyussBishop wrote: »

The price of houses, rises with the availability of cheap credit - look to the people responsible for creating the conditions for, and for doling out, the cheap credit - and those well-connected enough to be the businessmen on the other end, churning out property to soak up the credit - all of them happen to also be the ones that got rich from it.

People have to avail of this cheap credit that is being doled out.

You don't just wake up one morning with thousands in loans due to the existence of cheap credit in your given economy.

Once again, it is always someone else who is to blame.